Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-01-20
PICO VS.. COHN Ell AL.
A Lawsuit for Real Prop
erty.
A LOCAL CAUSE CELEBRE
Findings of Law-0pinion Of the
Court and Judgment for
Defendants.

Defendants.
Pho Pico VS.. B. Cohn ct al. In the superior
Court of the County of Los Angeles, State
OF California.
This cause having been heretofore tried
by the court, sitting without jury the re
spective parties appearing by their attor
neys, and the Court having heard the evi
dence, and argument thereon and being
advised in the premises, now makes the
following findings in fact. and conclusions
OF law.
On the 7th day of April, 1888. the plaintiff
was the owner of all the properties and real
estate described in the complaint, but at the
time the said Ranchito had been sold under
decree of foreclosure, duly given and
rendered in the Superior Court of the City
and County of San Francisco. in the case Of
Savings 4 Loau Society, against Pho Pico,
to one A. X. Loomis, who held the certif
cate of purchase therefor. and the time for
redemption from said sale would then ex-
pire on or about April 10, 1885,. and the
amount necessary to secure such redemption
was $45, 5,2sS44. The other two properties in
said complaint described. to wit: the Pico
House and the Bank, were at the same
time claimed by the said Savings and Loan
Society under sale made under deed OF
trust, by said Pico to certain trustees, for
the use and benefit of said Savings and Loan
Society, and plaintiff was on said 7th day OF
April, 1888, engaged in litigation with sald
Savings and Loan Society with regard to
the title to said two pieces OF property.
There existed also at that time other claims
and liens, judgments and attachments
against plaintiff and upon said properties,
and plaintiff had prior to that date OF April
7th, 1888, been negotiating with di1iereht
parties to borrow money suficient to pay
of and discharge such liens ana encum-
brances, and to redeem said Ranchit2' from
said mortgage sale.
Said properties were on said date OF the
aggregate value of $ll70 900. ana no more,
that is the said Ranchilo was of the value oi
$4,000 and the other two properties were OF
the value OF $4,000, but the market value of
plaintiffs title to all OF said properties at
that time by reason of liens, incumbrances.
claims. sales and pending litigation, did
not exceed the sum OF 100000.
III.
l. is not true that under these circumstan
ces or under any circumstances the defend
ant Conn, offered to advance to plaintiff the
money he required, or any money whatev-
er, upon the terms that the plaintiff should
convey to him or any other person. the said
three properties, or either of them, and
that the plaintiff should have the right to
redeem the same at any time before the
first day of July, 1888, or ar any other time,
by paying to said defendant or 70 any per.
SOL, the sum OF hlXly -HVe LuUusaUu
or any other sum, and any amounts or any
amounts that the defendant might pay in
the meantime, or at any time on account of
the plaintiff beyond $62,s37 or beyond any
other sum in settling liens or adverse
claims upon said properties or for any other
purpose.
l. is not true that the defendants, or eth
er OF them, ever made any such proposition,
or any proposition of like import, and it is
not true that the plaintiff ever at any time
accepted said proposition, or any PROPOSE
ton of like import. or that In pursuance
thereof, on said 7th day of April, 1888, he ex-
ecuted and delivered a deed OF conveyance
of said properties.
It is true that on the said 7th day of April.
1889, plaintiff Pho Pico, made, executed and
delivered to the defendant b Cohn. his
deed of conveyance, wherein and whereby,
transferred and conveyed all three of the
respective properties described in the CON-
plant, and generally designated as the
Ranchito, the Pico House and the Bank, to
said B. Cohn. Said deed was absolute IN
form and in fact, and was not made or in
tended by the parties thereto, or by either
of them, as a security to secure the pay
ment Of any sum W9atevei a one Cnh or 10 oe.
to- any other person under any agreement
whatever.
Neither at the time of the making and de-
livery OF SalQ ueeO Dy pldlHtlu FICO W ue-
fendant Cohn, nor at any time prior there
to, nor at any time. did the defendants. or
either of them. ever consplre to defraud the
plaintiff out of his said properties, or out of
by them or either of them, in pursu-
ance of any conspiracy to procure all abso-
lutte conveyance of the property, and they
repudiate the agreement, or any agreement,
or in pursuance of any conspiracy what.
ever.
Neither at the time of the execution and
delivery of said deed nor at any other time,
did the defendant or either of them make
any false or fraudulent statements or repre-
sehtations, to plaintiff, nor did they or
either OF them use any undue influence, or
practice any deception upon plaintiff
whereby to btain said deed OF conveyanc
nor wss plaintiff deceived or impose upon
or unduly Influenced, by any acts. doings
or sayings OF defendants or either of them,
concerning all or any OF the transactions.
aud iucluding the making, executing and
delivery of said Seeds
VII.
Neither at the time of the execution or
delivery of said deed, nor at any other
time, did the defendant Cohn, or either of
he, plaintiff, could rely upon his, the de-
fendant. Cohn's honesty and honor to carry
out any agreement, or that 1t was unnec-
cssary to reduce any agreement TO writing
until after the said deed was executed, nor
did said Cohn ever agree or represent to
said Pico, that he would give Linn written
defeasance, or any other writing at any
time, or at all, or for any purpose.
VIII.
It is not true that defendant Cohn ever
told the plaintiff that he would make any
advances rs stated in the complaint. or at
all, upon the written opinion Of Glassell,
Smith & Patton or any other person or
persons that the title was good, nor did the
oil OniniOn
,Glassell, Smith & Patton or either of
them in making this or any other trsnsac.
tions concerning said properties or either
of them.
On tn. said 7th day of April, 1888. there
WAS no existing Indebtedness from or by
the plaintiff to defendants or either of them,
nor was such indebtedness created at that
time, nor was there any agreement or un-
derstanding for the future creation of any
such Indebtedness The said deed was
made. executed and delivered and received
with the express sunae.staaqtng s anu am.ea
TO vest the said grantee with all the right
title and estate OF the said grantor, of. In
and to all the property therein described,
in fee absolute, without condition defea'
sance. OF contingency, apd Of this agree
ment, intent and understanding both the
parties thereto had full knowledge and
due appreciation. Its execution and deliv-
cry was the free act and deed OF the plain
tiff. and he was not induced thereto by any
fraud, undue influence. misrepre entation,
deceit, concealment or deception on the
and plaintiff at the time he signed, ack nowI.
edged and delivered the same, had full
knowledge and understanding Of its CON
tents, its import, and its effect; The sale by
Conn was in good faith. aud was absolute,
unconditional and said deed was not in
any respect understood or Intended to be or
operate as any security for any sum OF
by defendants or either of them for any
purpose whatever. 1t was intended and
understood by all the parties thereto 9,Io to
and ownefship of said properties and all
thereof, to the full measure of all the right.
title and interest of the grantor. as thereto
fore owned by him. as also to vest the
and defendant b. Cohn paid aud plaintiff